PER
CURIAM: Petitioner filed
a legal malpractice action against respondents. The trial judge granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment
on the issue of whether respondents owed petitioner a fiduciary duty with
respect to a congressional life insurance policy issued to petitioner’s late
husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the issue was not preserved
for review. Spence v. Wingate, 378 S.C. 486, 663 S.E.2d 70 (Ct. App.
2008). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with further
briefing, reverse the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and remand the matter to the
Court of Appeals for a ruling on the merits of petitioner’s arguments.

At the
hearing on respondents’ motion for summary judgment, respondents argued they
were entitled to summary judgment because there existed no attorney-client
relationship between respondents and petitioner; therefore, respondents owed no
duty to petitioner. Petitioner countered that she was a former client of
respondents, and maintained respondents owed her a fiduciary duty based on the relationship.
The trial judge granted summary judgment, finding respondents “owed no duty or
obligation” to petitioner.

The
Court of Appeals held the issue was not preserved for review because petitioner
failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment. The
Court of Appeals found the argument was not preserved because the trial judge
did not mention petitioner’s alternative theory of liability that, as a former
client of respondents, she had a continuing fiduciary relationship with
respondents.

We hold
the Court of Appeals erred in finding the issue was not preserved for appeal. The
trial judge’s order granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on precisely the grounds argued by respondents at the summary judgment hearing. While that
order did not restate the ground on which petitioner opposed the motion - a
duty based on the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship - the order
explicitly addresses that argument by ruling respondents “owed no duty or
obligation” to petitioner. This ruling is sufficient to preserve petitioner’s
argument that respondents owed a duty to petitioner, and petitioner was not
required to file a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend in order to preserve the
issue for appeal. SeeI’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338
S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (holding that, if the losing party
has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails to rule upon it,
the party must file a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment in order
to preserve the issue for appellate review).

Accordingly,
we hold the Court of Appeals erred in finding the issue was not preserved for
review, and we remand the matter to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the
merits.